You've obviously never been in a courtroom. The letter of the law is so important there that the "spirit" of things can become irrelevant. It's possible that they aren't allowed to ban activities simply because they "cause trouble," I don't know the details. It's also possible that these issues were discussed, but not mentioned in the article (I didn't RTFA).
Imagine the legal hurdles you would have to jump if you wanted to ban inmates from reading certain books because they were "subversive." You'd have to come up with a real slick justification for violating the first amendment.
You're half right and half wrong. They don't like regulation that costs them huge chunks of their profit margins, sure. However like the parent poster suggested, businesses like regulation that makes it hard for new players to enter the market.
If regulation makes it hard for new businesses to start but is trivially expensive for big business, then they are going to love that. Like say forcing all of the businesses in a particular sector to pay $10,000 for a license. That's nothing to a big company like Microsoft but to us it could mean life or death.
Imagine if we made it legal to manufacture, sell and serve liquor out of your home without a license as a small business. Do you think that local breweries and bars would support or oppose that decision?
If the government gave me the power to make *real* virtual money without any kind of downside, I wouldn't care about what it did to my game.
Except that if nobody was using it to buy anything in your game, or you created a huge amount of it and made it easy to obtain by playing your game, nobody would have any reason to trade anything for your virtual money and it would be worthless, making the exchange rate for other currencies would not very good.
If you think about it, this is how money works in the "real" world too -- you typically can't walk into a store and buy milk with a foreign currency, you've got to exchange it for the local currency. If nobody wants to buy anything in a particular country, or that country's government prints too much money, the exchange rate collapses. World of Warcraft and other similar games are just like virtual countries.
Your analogy makes no sense. Cops concern themselves with not breaking the law all of the time. What happens if a cop arrests someone without reading them their miranda rights? They get to go free. What happens if a cop conducts an illegal search? All of the evidence gathered is invalid in court. That is definitely something that the boss would be upset about.
They'd have to start dragging people out of their beds at night without due process and sending them to forced labor camps for us to respond with violence. Corrupt officials should be impeached or voted out of office in election, not shot. What you suggest is barbaric.
I think I made some other valid points though. Of course this technology might make it a lot easier for people to snoop on what you are doing by viewing your screen remotely...
Re:How much cat6 would $100.00 buy?
on
Intel Launches Wi-Di
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
I agree that it doesn't make sense for a desktop PC. However you are neglecting to consider a laptop. It can be a pain to attach and detach a laptop to a television or digital projector using a VGA cable. Imagine being able to sit down in your living room with your laptop and, from the couch, use only the laptop controls to transmit your screen to your television or projector. Imagine if everyone in the house had such a laptop, and they could all take turns using the same television to display their movies, music, games, etc.
Imagine if you could be at a business conference with a large video projector and hundreds of businesspeople all with laptops that were capable of wirelessly connecting to the projector to display their slide presentations, graphs, or videos, and if anyone in the audience could do this without even leaving their seat.
In the old days of computer, we used to have dummy monitor terminals connected to mainframes. The cost of the computer was greater than the cost of the monitor so we set up one computer to work with many monitors at once. Today, the cost of computers is much less, and the paradigm shifted; a monitor is more expensive (or as expensive) as a computer. So we rig our computers to use multiple video monitors. We are truly entering a golden age where it is possible for everyone to have a small computer, like a PDA device, that they can use to plug into dummy monitor/keyboard terminals or projected video screens. Imagine if they could do all of this without cables.
My computer needed tuning because it was too fast. My quad-core 2.4ghz Phenom processor kept running hot and overheating, causing the computer to reboot. I underclocked it to 2.0ghz using the motherboard BIOS settings and I haven't had any problems with it since.
Since the printer is out of ink, it can't print without an $80 investment. Since a new, better printer costs less, nobody would stand to gain from investing in the old printer at all, even if you gave it away. Therefore, nobody in the world wants to use it, possibly excluding a hobbyist who wants to use the spare parts. So if he doesn't throw it away, someone else will.
I appreciate your concern for the environment, but it's a knee-jerk reaction. Nobody can make any use of this printer. The production energy that you mentioned is a sunk cost. Furthermore, if the ink cartridges are that expensive, they must be expensive to produce (even if most of the "expense" is corporate profits), and therefore damaging to the economy and/or the environment.
Are you stupid or what? The part where he is the "messenger" is in his link where he shows that the headset DOES in fact have a gyroscope, and not an accelerometer.
Maybe you missed my point because I didn't express it clearly enough, but I am drawing attention to the fact that what they have "said so" is bad for us and bad for them. There's no way I'm going to buy a Wii, so they'd stand to make more money by selling me NES and SNES roms on the computer that I already own.
It's a dick move for Nintendo to artificially restrict access to their product in the way that they've decided to do so. If all I want is to play old videogames, $200 for a Wii doesn't make much sense. It also doesn't make sense for me to buy a bunch of old game consoles and clutter my living room with 4 or 5 different computers when just one would suffice.
I'm not advocating piracy here, I'm just saying that forcing the consumer to buy "special" hardware in order to play a game that would work rather well on any PC on the market is a dick move.
You're missing my point. It's a dick move for Nintendo to try and force me to buy a second, proprietary computer in order to play their games when they could just sell them to me on the computer that I already own. I already know it's illegal to pirate games, that's a no-brainer.
That doesn't make any sense. People play the games to have fun and they pay the software engineers to produce the virtual environments. It's a perfectly legitimate transaction. The producers of the software don't make any money when their users get scammed so it is in their interest to explicitly create an environment that DOESN'T enable theft.
You're having a knee-jerk reaction. How did you lose the gold after buying it, anyway? You would have had to give out your username and password. You shouldn't have to give those away to buy gold. When someone asks for your password, you can bet that it's a scam, virtual world or not, and regardless of whether or not you RTFEULA.
You misread my statement. I was saying that you feel like you need to criticize anyone who criticizes an argument which criticizes China. Re-read my sentence, you fucking dolt.
You don't like the People's Republic because of their actions. It's okay. Nobody does. I never suggested that you disliked the Chinese people themselves and you're an idiot for thinking that's what I was saying. But you've lost your ability to be skeptical. You're the one who is acting ignorant. I'm merely keeping an open mind. Why don't you try re-reading the original post you responded to and think about whether or not the poster's criticism was valid, instead of having this childish knee-jerk reaction.
Slashdot Mirror
You've obviously never been in a courtroom. The letter of the law is so important there that the "spirit" of things can become irrelevant. It's possible that they aren't allowed to ban activities simply because they "cause trouble," I don't know the details. It's also possible that these issues were discussed, but not mentioned in the article (I didn't RTFA).
Imagine the legal hurdles you would have to jump if you wanted to ban inmates from reading certain books because they were "subversive." You'd have to come up with a real slick justification for violating the first amendment.
You're half right and half wrong. They don't like regulation that costs them huge chunks of their profit margins, sure. However like the parent poster suggested, businesses like regulation that makes it hard for new players to enter the market.
If regulation makes it hard for new businesses to start but is trivially expensive for big business, then they are going to love that. Like say forcing all of the businesses in a particular sector to pay $10,000 for a license. That's nothing to a big company like Microsoft but to us it could mean life or death.
Imagine if we made it legal to manufacture, sell and serve liquor out of your home without a license as a small business. Do you think that local breweries and bars would support or oppose that decision?
We can already make diamonds.
5 .. 4 .. 3 .. 2 . 1 .
If the government gave me the power to make *real* virtual money without any kind of downside, I wouldn't care about what it did to my game.
Except that if nobody was using it to buy anything in your game, or you created a huge amount of it and made it easy to obtain by playing your game, nobody would have any reason to trade anything for your virtual money and it would be worthless, making the exchange rate for other currencies would not very good.
If you think about it, this is how money works in the "real" world too -- you typically can't walk into a store and buy milk with a foreign currency, you've got to exchange it for the local currency. If nobody wants to buy anything in a particular country, or that country's government prints too much money, the exchange rate collapses. World of Warcraft and other similar games are just like virtual countries.
Your analogy makes no sense. Cops concern themselves with not breaking the law all of the time. What happens if a cop arrests someone without reading them their miranda rights? They get to go free. What happens if a cop conducts an illegal search? All of the evidence gathered is invalid in court. That is definitely something that the boss would be upset about.
Were you born yesterday?
They'd have to start dragging people out of their beds at night without due process and sending them to forced labor camps for us to respond with violence. Corrupt officials should be impeached or voted out of office in election, not shot. What you suggest is barbaric.
Amusingly, you can also buy a house for $46,000 today.
I think I made some other valid points though. Of course this technology might make it a lot easier for people to snoop on what you are doing by viewing your screen remotely ...
I agree that it doesn't make sense for a desktop PC. However you are neglecting to consider a laptop. It can be a pain to attach and detach a laptop to a television or digital projector using a VGA cable. Imagine being able to sit down in your living room with your laptop and, from the couch, use only the laptop controls to transmit your screen to your television or projector. Imagine if everyone in the house had such a laptop, and they could all take turns using the same television to display their movies, music, games, etc.
Imagine if you could be at a business conference with a large video projector and hundreds of businesspeople all with laptops that were capable of wirelessly connecting to the projector to display their slide presentations, graphs, or videos, and if anyone in the audience could do this without even leaving their seat.
In the old days of computer, we used to have dummy monitor terminals connected to mainframes. The cost of the computer was greater than the cost of the monitor so we set up one computer to work with many monitors at once. Today, the cost of computers is much less, and the paradigm shifted; a monitor is more expensive (or as expensive) as a computer. So we rig our computers to use multiple video monitors. We are truly entering a golden age where it is possible for everyone to have a small computer, like a PDA device, that they can use to plug into dummy monitor/keyboard terminals or projected video screens. Imagine if they could do all of this without cables.
I'll get off your lawn now.
My computer needed tuning because it was too fast. My quad-core 2.4ghz Phenom processor kept running hot and overheating, causing the computer to reboot. I underclocked it to 2.0ghz using the motherboard BIOS settings and I haven't had any problems with it since.
So what you're saying is that you refused to consider the argument because it was written by a woman? I think you're the one who is biased here.
Since the printer is out of ink, it can't print without an $80 investment. Since a new, better printer costs less, nobody would stand to gain from investing in the old printer at all, even if you gave it away. Therefore, nobody in the world wants to use it, possibly excluding a hobbyist who wants to use the spare parts. So if he doesn't throw it away, someone else will.
I appreciate your concern for the environment, but it's a knee-jerk reaction. Nobody can make any use of this printer. The production energy that you mentioned is a sunk cost. Furthermore, if the ink cartridges are that expensive, they must be expensive to produce (even if most of the "expense" is corporate profits), and therefore damaging to the economy and/or the environment.
Are you stupid or what? The part where he is the "messenger" is in his link where he shows that the headset DOES in fact have a gyroscope, and not an accelerometer.
If you were starving to death, you'd invest in piracy too.
Yeah, and I don't own any of them.
Maybe I'd like to throw away all of those old pieces of shit and play the games on the computer I use every day.
Maybe you missed my point because I didn't express it clearly enough, but I am drawing attention to the fact that what they have "said so" is bad for us and bad for them. There's no way I'm going to buy a Wii, so they'd stand to make more money by selling me NES and SNES roms on the computer that I already own.
It's a dick move for Nintendo to artificially restrict access to their product in the way that they've decided to do so. If all I want is to play old videogames, $200 for a Wii doesn't make much sense. It also doesn't make sense for me to buy a bunch of old game consoles and clutter my living room with 4 or 5 different computers when just one would suffice.
I'm not advocating piracy here, I'm just saying that forcing the consumer to buy "special" hardware in order to play a game that would work rather well on any PC on the market is a dick move.
Wooosh!
You're missing my point. It's a dick move for Nintendo to try and force me to buy a second, proprietary computer in order to play their games when they could just sell them to me on the computer that I already own. I already know it's illegal to pirate games, that's a no-brainer.
Right over your head.
Why the fuck should we have to buy a Wii to play old nintendo games when we already own perfectly good computers?
That doesn't make any sense. People play the games to have fun and they pay the software engineers to produce the virtual environments. It's a perfectly legitimate transaction. The producers of the software don't make any money when their users get scammed so it is in their interest to explicitly create an environment that DOESN'T enable theft.
You're having a knee-jerk reaction. How did you lose the gold after buying it, anyway? You would have had to give out your username and password. You shouldn't have to give those away to buy gold. When someone asks for your password, you can bet that it's a scam, virtual world or not, and regardless of whether or not you RTFEULA.
Yeah, that's what we need, secret police. What could go wrong?
Indeed, this is the mission of the 50-cent gang
You misread my statement. I was saying that you feel like you need to criticize anyone who criticizes an argument which criticizes China. Re-read my sentence, you fucking dolt.
You don't like the People's Republic because of their actions. It's okay. Nobody does. I never suggested that you disliked the Chinese people themselves and you're an idiot for thinking that's what I was saying. But you've lost your ability to be skeptical. You're the one who is acting ignorant. I'm merely keeping an open mind. Why don't you try re-reading the original post you responded to and think about whether or not the poster's criticism was valid, instead of having this childish knee-jerk reaction.